KINGFISH ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC ET AL v. RADINE BULTMAN (2023)

Writ application granted. See per curiam.

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 2023-CC-01260 KINGFISH ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC., ET AL. VS. RADINE BULTMAN On Supervisory Writ to the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans PER CURIAM Granted. Considering the uncontroverted evidence of plaintiffs’ counsel's medical issues, we find the district court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion for continuance. The judgment of the district court is therefore reversed. We are mindful that this action has been pending for several years and further delay is contrary to the interests of justice. Accordingly, while we direct the district court to grant an appropriate continuance, the order shall be subject to the condition that no further continuances will be granted. If plaintiffs’ counsel's medical issues continue to impair his ability to provide competent representation, he should either associate additional counsel or withdraw in order to allow plaintiffs to obtain new counsel.

In light of the great discretion afforded to the trial court in whether to grant or deny a continuance, I would deny this application. See State v. Dye, 384 So. 2d 420 (La. 5/19/80) (“[T]he trial court has great discretion when deciding whether to grant a continuance, and its decision not to grant a continuance should not be disturbed unless there was arbitrary and unreasonable abuse of discretion.”) (internal citations omitted). In my view, while I am not insensitive to the noted medical issues, given the nearly six years this matter has been pending and counsel's choice of an already unavailable substitute attorney, I cannot say the trial court abused her discretion in denying this continuance under these circumstances. I therefore dissent.

I reluctantly concur in the grant of writ, because I do not wish to punish the client for problems of the attorney. I also add the following admonition. As lamentable as issues of health are, attorneys nonetheless owe ethical and contractual obligations to their clients for expeditious resolution of their legal matters. In addition, attorneys also owe ethical obligations to opposing counsel and the courts. At some point, long past in this case, an attorney is obliged to either involve additional counsel or send the client elsewhere for competent, prompt legal representation.

Crichton, J., dissents and assigns reasons. Crain, J., dissents. McCallum, J., concurs and assigns reasons.